1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1975 - 1989
12/24/2013 8:09:33 AM
12/23/2013 11:53:14 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
18 MINUTES <br />OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL <br />SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 <br />Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner and Mayor Courtney. <br />CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED. <br />Member mer to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented. <br />Motion was made by Member Smith and seconded by <br />Rollcall : <br />Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney <br />Motion carried. <br />*MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 17. 1987 APPROVED. Motion vas made by <br />Member Smith and seconded by Member Turner to approve the minutes of the Regular <br />Meetjng of August 17, 1987. <br />Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCLUDED: ASSESSMENTS LEVIED FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL NO. TS-87 AND <br />SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S-35. <br />hereinafter recorded on the following proposed assessments: <br />Public hearings were concluded and action taken as <br />1. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT NO. TS-87 <br />Location: Intersection of West 70th Street and Cornelia Drive <br />Engineer Hoffman stated that the public hearing on the proposed assessment for <br />Traffic Control Signal Improvement No. TS-87 had been continued at the meeting of <br />September 14, 1987 at the request of the Edina School Board to allow discussion of <br />the proposed assessment at their meeting of September 14, 1987. He recalled that <br />at the public hearing on the project held on June 17, 1985 it was reported that <br />the State had approved funding for one-half of the cost of the signal installation <br />from State Aid funds and that 50% of the cost required a local funding source. <br />The three proposed.alternatives for funding the local share of the project were: <br />1) City General Fund, 2) City General Fund and School District funds, and 3) <br />special assessment of the neighborhood which was defined as the approximate <br />walking area for students attending Cornelia School. <br />notified of the public hearing and of the potential assessment. <br />Minutes of the June 17, 1985 meeting record that a motion was discussed to fund <br />the traffic signal project by special- assessment to the School District and the <br />City. However, that motion failed to pass. An alternative motion was passed <br />adopting a resolution ordering the traffic control signal system with the <br />recommendation that the one-half of the construction cost not funded by State Aid <br />funds be assessed 1/3 to the City, 1/3 to the School district and 1/3 to benefited <br />property owners. <br />$14.00 per lot for property owners, $15,000 for the City, and $15,000 for the <br />School District. <br />Engineer Hoffman stated that the balance of construction cost of $45,870.60 after <br />applying State Aid funds to the project is proposed to be assessed as follows: one <br />year assessment of $17.80 per. lot against 818 assessable lots, City of Edina <br />$16,037.80 and School District No. 273 $15,290.00. <br />traffic signals in the community are placed at the intersection of a county road <br />and a municipal State Aid street and most of the funding comes from gas tax funds. <br />An exception was on France Avenue between West 66th and West 69th Streets where <br />there are two 'traffic signals that serve the'southdale Office Center and Southdale <br />Center. <br />subject traffic signal would be the second time that the cost is proposed to be <br />assessed against benefited property owners. . Services for School District No. 273, in reference to the September 15, 1987 - , <br />letter from the School Board clarified that in checking they did uncover a file <br />containing the notice of public hearing for the traffic signal project and a copy <br />of the Council Minutes of June 17, 1985. He said that the position of the School <br />District would have been that installation of traffic signals in the community was <br />a responsibility of the City and that the funding would be best coming from State <br />Aid funds, County and City sources. He added that given the circumstances of this <br />traffic signal installation, the pressure from the community and lack of funding <br />for the total cost, the District realized that this may not be possible. <br />Therefore the position of the District at this time is that the assessment be on. <br />an area-wide distribution based on the values of the properties, the District <br />being one of those property owners and that they take exception to the 1/3 <br />approach. <br />needed was because of the elementary school located there. <br />that the traffic signal is used by many people in the area and that she would be <br />open to spreading the assessment area further. <br />realizes that the traffic signal is of great benefit to the children attending <br />Cornelia School and that it has had a positive affect in reducing the speed of <br />vehicles through the area. Member Smith pointed outJhat there is a park that <br />surrounds two sides of the school which is owned by the City and that there is a <br />mutual benefit at that intersection. <br />clarified that the School District's position is that the 2/3 cost be assessed <br />over the entire property of the area of which the School District owns some <br />property. This would leave the City to be assessed for 1/3 of the cost. Engineer <br />Hoffman said if the Council were to approve the assessment as suggested by the <br />School District it would amount to an assessment of approximately $35.00 per legal <br />Approximately 800 homes were <br />The Council <br />That recommendation resulted in an estimated assessment of <br />As presented at the public hearing on September 14, 1987, <br />He explained that typically <br />Those signals were assessed 100% against the benefitted properties. The <br />Jim Hamann, Director of Business <br />. <br />Mayor Courtney commented that the main reason a traffic light was <br />Member Kelly commented <br />Mr. Hamann said the School <br />In response to Member Smith, Mr. Hamann <br />!- <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.